Was flattered to read that Goodgrape cited my recent blog on Art and Commerce. It prompted an in-house comment that it might be nice if relate some of these postings to wine, since in that one (and most others) I didn’t. I am incredulous, but capitulating all the same. After all, I am a vintner….
So consider this a ‘part deux’ of that first post. And the smell of it. Turns out that completely coincidently, I spent all of a recent morning in the Miletus of our little valley, the place that plays a sizable role in much art/commerce wine talk among winemakers in the greater 50 states and beyond. The place was none other than the offices of Enologix. It was a perfect opportunity to taste some very good wines and blatantly, if quietly, ponder the art-commerce-art question specifically as it pertains to wine.
Few in the wine world elicit such passionate debate as does Enologix founder Leo McCloskey. Many say he is a maverick genius for bringing an industry famously (and some would say purposefully) ambiguous in its ability to objectively define quality a tool to do so and then having the cojones to challenge them to use it . Others describe him as a pariah whose efforts will lead to total homogenization of premium wines. In lay terms, Leo and his team analyzed samples of thousands of critically acclaimed (‘90+”) wines, and then developed a proprietary and quantifiably measurable index that will indicate wine’s potential score very early in its life (even as fruit). Winemakers hence can use the analysis, plus his subsequent winemaking input, to gear their process toward making a wine that will achieve the highest possible critical score. At the crux of the debate is how/whether the artistic integrity, individuality and intrinsic quality of wine that is made according the unique vision of a winemaker is eroded when the process is changed to reflect the end objective of producing a wine geared toward achieving a specific, quantifiable critical rating. An argument about the intrinsic quality of a movie-making process that involves adjusting story lines in response to focus groups versus one that is about fulfilling the unique vision of a director would be similar.
As for me personally, 6th generation and all, I have a fairly well-established leaning towards the independently derived. There are certainly exceptions, but in general I gravitate toward art, music, writing, restaurant meal, whatever, to be the specific vision of its creator. If I like, I jump on the bandwagon and become a promoter of the people behind it, and if I don’t, I don’t. Not sure that makes me different from too many people. I was brought up with (and remain attracted to) the notion that wine, at least at our level, is the same in that at its best it absolutely reflects not only the specific attributes of where it is grown, but also the skill, talents and tastes of the winemaker and his/her team.
For many it ends there and it is simple; winemaking is an art. It is ultimately up to the winemaker to make what tastes best to him (and possibly his team), and the market will applaud or not. Any other approach is a step away from true individual expression and towards a MCD (mass common denominator).
As nice as it would be to see things that clearly, I am not quite there. A key aspect of all this is that the wine (the book, the album, etc.) has to be worth someone spending money for. And in our segment of the industry, as much I might like it to be otherwise, it still holds true that the fastest way to confirm value in the mind of consumers is through third party critics. Even if consumers themselves don’t pay attention to them, the people they buy wine from do, and hence the influence trickles down. Critics matter. It would be foolish for anyone in the business of making wine to sell to dismiss an opportunity to seriously increase the likelihood of a good rating without major consideration.
Serious consideration is where I have been for the last decade. I have come to believe that Leo and his team are extremely talented, and truly are motivated by the potential success of current and future clients. I have also come to view the tools that Enologix offers as a very useful gauge of how your vineyards, wines, and taste preferences stack up versus the specific likes of the wine critics. And I begrudge no one for employing them as a guideline to winemaking. All that said, my stake is firmly in the ground as a producer of independently derived, spiritually and sensually fulfilling vineyard reflective wines, and I could never feel right about driving our wine style toward a certain numerical value, unless that value reflected a flavor profile that we determined was ideal.
One last non-wine follow up to the original Art/Commerce post: Adam Lambert, whose version of Mad World I praised in that post for being a union of art and commerce, is still bringing it on American Idol:
